Transitions to Democracy by Rustow (AKA Hot Family Feud)

Transitions to Democracy:  Toward a Dynamic Model by Dankwart A. Rustow (1970, pgs 337-363) 

Questions:  “What conditions make democracy possible; and what conditions make it thrive?” (pg 337)

Three types of explanations currently exist.   1) “connect(ing) stable democracy with certain economic and social background conditions (337)” 2) “the need for beliefs or certain psychological attitudes among citizens” (337) 3) the need for certain preexisting “social and political structure” (338)

Problems with these preexisting arguments

“1. The factors that keep a democracy stable may not be the ones that brought it into existence; explanations of democracy must distinguish between function and genesis.

2. Correlation is not the same as causation; a genetic theory must concentrate on the latter.

3. Not all causal links run from social and economic political factors.

4. Not all causal links run from beliefs and attitudes to actions.

5. The genesis of democracy need not be geographically uniform: different factors may become crucial during successive phases.

7. The genesis of democracy need not be socially uniform; even in the same place and time the attitudes that promote it may not be the same for politicians and for common citizens” (346)

Problems with previous methodological applications

“8. Empirical data in support of a genetic theory must cover, for any given country, a time period from just before until just after the advent of democracy.

9. To examine the logic of transformation within political systems, we may leave aside countries where a major impetus came from abroad.

10. A model or ideal type of the transition may be derived from a close examination of two or three empirical cases and tested by application to the rest”

Toward a dynamic model

Necessary background condition  = “national unity” (350)

 Hypothesis:  “against this single background condition, the dynamic process of democratization itself is set off by a prolonged and inclusive political struggle.  To give it those qualities, the protagonists must represent well-entrenched forces (typically social classes), and the issues must have profound meaning to them.  Such a struggle is likely to begin as the result of the emergence of a new elite that arouses a depressed and previously leaderless social group into concerted action”  (352)

Thus “What infant democracy requires is not a lukewarm struggle but a hot family feud” (355) – this is the notable quote associated with the article

Summary/Conclusion:  Three broad assertions of the mode:  “First, it says that certain ingredients are indispensible to the genesis of democracy.  For one thing, there must be a sense of national unity.  For another, there must be entrenched and serious conflict.  For a third, there must be a conscious adoption of democratic rules.  And, finally, both politicians and electorate must be habituated to these rules” (381)